The Librarian: Return to King Solomon's Mines (TV Movie 2006) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
40 Reviews
Sort by:
Silly, but a lot of fun
deejou17 October 2006
If you don't take it too seriously you'll really enjoy this. Noah Wyle returns as the Librarian Flynn. This time he sets out to find King Solomon's Mine together with the help of fellow "nerd" Emily Davenport (Gabrielle Anwar). I found a lot of similarities to Indiana Jones as well as The Mummy is this film. But it did not ruin the Librarian 2 for me at all. It's still different enough to stand alone. I think the character Flynn makes this movie. He is an interesting and well written character who really entertains. I also enjoyed the addition of Gabrielle Anwar, whose love/hate relationship with Flynn creates some nice laughs. Overall The Librarian 2 has enough action, adventure and twists to keep you interested. Basically if you liked the first one, you'll like this one.
55 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The fun continues
chrichtonsworld23 December 2007
Again people don't seem to realize that this movie is all about fun. Like the first part this is a parody on the adventure genre,especially Indiana Jones. It is not supposed to be a serious or thrilling movie. After reading some comments you would think that this movie has nothing to offer and really is rubbish. Wrong! The sequel to "The Librarian" is just as good and maybe even better. It is full of action,adventure,nice special effects (remember it is only a TV production) and a lot of comedy. And they even added a touch of drama. Time just flies when you are watching this movie. This movie never gets boring. And again Noah Wyle is great,who shows growth in character and is more confident than he was in the first part. I am glad that they are going to make a third movie. I can watch movies like this again and again. Keep them coming!
22 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This was just wonderful TV fare
ApolloBoy1094 December 2006
What fun! Noah Wyle strikes gold as the intrepid explorer/adventurer Flynn. I had been waiting for a sequel since the first one some years back. And I couldn't have been happier with the results.

Aside from the brilliant production it is the writing that shines here. Well-thought out plot line with all the magic and silliness this kind of entertainment demands. Everything was in its place and geared up to thrill you.

Having dispensed with the background of how Flynn becomes the iconic librarian, this second chapter hits the deck running from the get go, never stopping to catch its breath.

The twists on Solomon's story were creative and exciting. The romance like a hundred other ones yet -- surprisingly fresh because of the chemistry between Noah Wyle and Gabrielle Antwar. Fire!

Bob Newhart is just a giant in subtle comedy. His character is certainly mysterious and full of dead pan remarks. What fun!! Always nice to see Jane Curtain, and of course Olympis Dukakis. But in the supporting cast it was Mehboob Bawa and Robert Foxworth who stole the thunder. Can't tell you why. See it.

Just see it! No heavy violence. No crude toilet humor. Just adventure and very likable performances.

Mr. Wyle, you were producer, can we have more, please.
47 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Flynn Carson is a seasoned Librarian after a year on the job.
kaygeess3 December 2006
While Carson has served a year a Librarian he still retains his delightfully nerdy quality. This made-for-TV movie is a film lover's spoof, not meant to be taken too seriously. The sequel holds up well thanks, in part, to the return of Jane Curtin, Bob Newhart and Olympia Dukakis, but Wyle is the heart of the film. His comic/dashing hero is in the same vein as Brandon Fraser in "The Mummy."

While a number of lines in "The Mummy Returns" came off as "lame" to me (an admittedly subjective judgment) I didn't really find any truly "lame" lines in this sequel and there were many really funny moments. I was afraid I might be disappointed, but my fears were groundless.
33 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Think Indiana Jones but not as serious
bobthemongoose9 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is a fairly good action adventure movie harking back to the days of Indiana Jones. The hero in this movie is Flynn Carson. And instead of a whip, he carries many books. Trying to find the key to unlock the treasures of King Solomans mines, Flynn meets Emily Davenport and with her help, Flynn tries to stop bad guys and ends up uncovering the secrets of his father's death. This movie moves along at a steady pace, and carries only a handful of fights and nearly half as many puzzles to solve. The first Librarian movie was full of action, suspense, and just enough character development to keep me happy. In this sequel, the suspense has been tuned down and the plot twist at the end wasn't so great. But, this movie was great and it was a fun way to spend a Sunday afternoon.
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bad but good
jeffberta14 December 2006
Simply put, this move tracks the adventures of a man named Flynn Carsen to find the riches of King Solomon and protect their secrets. He meets Emily Davenport, a brilliant, beautiful woman, who is obsessed with the Queen of Sheeba, and the two go off together to find the "Mines" where the treasure, and a very dangerous book of spells, is hidden.

OK, this movie is very cliché. If Harrison Ford was in it and the script, acting, and special effects were slightly better, it could be Indiana Jones. The acting is fairly bad and the plot jumps from place to place, never really certain who feels what and who does what.

That said, it is one of those movies that is so bad, that it's good. Even though the acting is goofy, it is still funny, and despite the plot holes, it is still fun. It's the kind of movie to watch on a Tuesday night when there's nothing to do. And, it's a TV movie. It's not going to be theater worthy. Think of it as cute and a good family movie (except for maybe one scene).

So watch this knowing that you won't be awed by it, only relatively amused.
20 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Second part of the Librarian series with lots of entertainment and fun
ma-cortes30 March 2009
This second outing in the popular ¨The Librarian franchise ¨(1ª Quest of the spear-2004- by Peter Winther and 3ª The curse of the Judas Chalice-2008- by Jonathan Frakes) concerns on Flynn Carsen(Noah Wyle), the roughest, toughest,silly, and botcher hero with 22 university degree . Flynn is assigned missions around the world and recover priceless objects guarded into Metropolitan library where are the Arthur's Excalibur blade, the skull of crystal, Saint Sheet of Turin, the magic flute, among others. Now he must to find the King Salomon's mines who ordered the building of the Temple by the 24 masons. He goes to Casablanca looking for a Salomon's key of map. There he encounters the tomb of Ptolomeo, the famous father of astronomy and geometry .Flynn accompanied by a beautiful archaeologist(Gabrielle Anwar) head to Kenia where allegedly is the Salomon's treasure. Our unpredictable heroes risk their lives and limb against a set of the nasties(Erick Avari) villains you've ever seen.

Entertained TV movie plenty of action-packed,tongue in check, adventures, love story and extremely funny. This one has a little bit of everything : rip-roaring action, thriller,Sci-Fi,fantasy,derring do and an exciting score by Joseph LoDuca. Along with a sympathetic Noah Wyle appear the habitual secondaries, as a deadpan Bob Newhart, Jane Curtin and his likable mother well played by Olympia Dukakis. Besides cameo by Jonathan Frakes as passenger in the Magic Honeymoon bus. This enjoyable picture combines splendidly ¨Riger Haggard's mines of King Salomon¨ with ¨Spielberg's Raiders of the lost ark¨. Spectacular final scenes with excessive and mediocre use of computer generator special effects, adding a colorful cinematography by Walt Lloyd. For utter spirit-lifting bemusing you can't do better than this television movie. The picture is lavishly produced by Dean Devlin in partnership with Noah Wyle and TNT. Efficient direction by Jonathan Frakes, the notorious Star Trek's commandant Riker.He's an expert filmmaker in Sci-Fi genre and TV episodes : Star Trek, Roswell,Masters of science fiction, Twilight zone, among them.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Love it!
SandraLyn10 December 2006
I loved it. I have watched four times now. I love the fact that they have grown the character of Flynn and taken away much of his bumbling. Flynn is showing growth. Noah is adorable and I feel did a wonderful job, better then the first. Noah was charming, funny, and his character was very real. I think Bob Newhart and Jane Curtain played their characters wonderfully. Kazeem also did a great job and was a wonderfully likable character. Olympia as Flynn's mother is a great choice and the chemistry between them was great to see. The special effects were also great. The background was beautiful and add a great dimension to the film. All in all I loved it and feel that it was better then the first, though I truly enjoyed both. I would love to see another sequel!
20 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Hippos like chocolate...
lastliberal8 December 2008
One year later we find out intrepid hero (Noah Wylie), an experienced Librarian and his bodyguard is no longer needed.

In a nod to Indiana Jones, he brings back the Crystal Skull in the opening sequence before he sets out on his real adventure that brings him into contact with Gabrielle Anwar ("Burn Notice", who did manage to turn in such an impressive performance that the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films gave her a best supporting actress nomination.

What is it with these English heroines? We have a new director and a new writer, but we still go back to England for the love interest. Well, this isn't Body Snatchers, so we won't be seeing her ta tas.

I won't reveal the bad guy here because it would spoil it.

Besides Indiana Jones, you see bits of The Mummy, and even Casablanca in the movie. It is popcorn fun for fans of those movies and Wylie does a great job.
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Miguided Direction - Super Cast
coachclown19 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I have to be completely honest when I say that I never intended to watch this movie at all. My cable provider has TNT right next to Discovery Channel and I thought I was watching a movie about Liberia (I'm a bit of an Africa buff). That being said, I watched a good ten minutes of "The Librarian" before I realized it was not a Steve Erwinesqe safari program. That's how persuasive the sets were! My poor reading of TV Guide, and my waning remote control skills, turned out to be a blessing as I was engrossed for a full hour and a half in this wacky adventure story.

I am not going to repeat here how awesome Newhart was (duh!), and how much growth we see in Wyle as an actor, but I do want to address head-on the whole Anwar Controversy. Some negative people on this site have hinted that Gabrielle was too skinny. Well have you ever thought that maybe she lost weight for this role on purpose?! Everyone is ready to lavish praise and Oscars on actresses like Hillary Swank who gained 15 pounds of muscle mass for "Million Dollar Baby," or for Rene Zellweger who packed on some baby fat for "Bridget Jones Diary" but you all seem ready to pillory Gabrielle for trying her best?! Hasn't anyone here ever tried to LOOSE weight. It's not easy, I can assure you of that. Furthermore, in my studies I have read that the women of the Masia tribe are typically thin and angular, much like Miss Anwar in this film. Perhaps it was her commitment to true character acting (see her portrayal of Mariska in "If Looks Could Kill - Teen Agent" if you doubt me) that pushed Gabrielle to "scale down" her physique for this unique role. She's a very good actor and no one can take that away from her. I would not be at all surprised to see her next week on the red carpet, back to her normal weight in no time.

I do have a bone to pick with this film though, and that bone is the directing. If a film were a skeleton, directing would be a large, important bone like the femur. The cast is the ribcage and the backbone (spine) is the plot. You can have a great plot and a great cast, but if your directing is bad, you've got no femur, and everything is just a little bit off. Simply put Jonathan Frakes drops the ball here. The producers should have stuck with Witner (I went back and saw the prequel). Anyway, it does not sink the film, just something producer Wyle might want to consider for the third episode in this very entertaining series of films.

****SPOILER**** I gave out a hearty chuckle when I finally realized they had completely copied the final scene of "Casablanca." Brilliant! If you didn't catch it the first time, it's worth another viewing.

ps - I noticed when I came here to post that the Canadian version of this film is 106 minutes. Could a Canadian fill us in on which 16 minutes of this movie was left on the cutting room floor? Thanks
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
king_icarus_the_first9 December 2006
I was extremely excited for the sequel of the Librarian. The first was mesmerizing at times, cheeky at others, but most of all it was good, quality entertainment (when was the last time you could say that about a movie you watched on TNT on a Saturday afternoon?). Noah Wyle has gone from geeky doctor to geeky librarian with the skill and poise of a very capable veteran actor. Unfortunately the entire premise of the sequel, the existence of the fabled King Solomon's mines is just way too preposterous. I'm not sure how we (the viewer) as well as the librarian himself are supposed to believe that these mines of myth actually do exist. I mean, hey, a floating, dancing Excalibur sword with an artificial intelligence... fine, I can accept that, but the existence of Solomon's mines? Insanity. The writers really pushed it this time around.

Nevertheless if you enjoyed this work then I could suggest a few other films of similar ilk and caliber: Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom, On the Waterfront, the Wizard of Oz, and Leprechaun: Back to the Hood. Thank you. btw I read the review by skalynuik and I am appalled...why do people always have to judge others by their appearances?? The hate that you are spreading is the same as racism...judge others and especially other actors by what they do and say and not by how they look. You should be ashamed of yourself skalynuik. Leave your hate at home!!!
15 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Another Exciting Adventure
Claudio Carvalho15 August 2009
After retrieving the Crystal Skull in Utah, Flynn Carsen (Noah Wyle) receives a map by mail with the secret location of King Solomon's Mines. When the scroll is stolen, Judson explains the power of the Key of Salomon's book and assigns Flynn to retrieve the map that is useless without the legend piece to decipher it, which is located in Volubilis near the Roman ruins in Morocco. Flynn heads to Casablanca to the ruins where he is chased by a group of mercenaries leaded by General Samir (Erick Avari) that also wants to find the location of King Solomon's mines. Flynn teams-up with Professor Emily Davenport (Gabrielle Anwar) that is working in the dig and they escape from General Samir and his men. While traveling to Gedi, they save the local Jomo (Hakeem Kae- Kazim) from death and the trio faces a dangerous journey through the wild Africa.

"The Librarian: Return to King Solomon's Mines" is another exciting adventure of Flynn Carsen in the style of Indiana Jones. The story is very funny and entertaining and presents references and a wonderful homage to the classic "Casablanca". The charming and gorgeous Gabrielle Anwar shows a wonderful chemistry with Noah Wyle and they form a pleasant lead couple. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Guardião: Retorno às Minas do Rei Salomão" ("The Guardian: Return to King Solomon's Mines")
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Best Mix of Adventure, Fantasy and Just Enough Humor
dixie-a-benny16 December 2006
I loved this movie! Indiana Jones/007/Harry Potter-like hero, Noah Wylie (charming and boyish) finding his destiny and a few fabulous treasures along the way. His 22 advanced degrees and adventurous spirit equip him to hold his own with another archaeologist, Gabrielle Anwar, whose 25 degrees make her a formidable barrier as he looks for clues to the whereabouts of Solomon's mine. Both characters are extremely strong and both run with scissors. Can they learn to play well together to achieve common goals and thwart some rather persistent villains who are out to control the world? This cat and mouse game is worth the viewing! When this movie comes out on DVD, I will own it!
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Unfortunately, just a sequel
Tony Foley16 October 2006
We were excitedly waiting for the release of the sequel to one of our favourite recent films, and managed to rent the DVD on its release in Australia. My family loved it, but I was a little disappointed. It lacked the one-liners of the first film, and much of the charm of the bumbling Flynn had also dissipated. The special effects were OK and there were a few laughs, but nothing of the absurdity which delightfully infected the original. The absence of Sonya Walwag was palpable, and neither Bob Newhart nor Jane Curtin really seemed to get into the film as they did with "Spear". This is not to say it is a bad film, but it does seem to play it a little by the numbers. There is one very obvious reference to a classic film, but nothing like the little teasers scattered through the original.
18 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Piece of Garbage
Mark Ramirez25 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
First off, it is obvious to me that everyone that gave this "movie" good reviews is either a). a Child b). High, or c), a mental hospital escapee.

Second, Let me say that I am a veteran of the crap movies that the sci-fi channel puts out. I have trudged through more of those than I care to admit, or remember.

That said, this movie is crap. This is below most of the cheap, low-budget movies I have seen(10.5 apocalypse, Annihilation Earth, Human Extinction, Monster Arc) on, that's right, you guessed it, the Sci-Fi Channel. I know, I know, sci-fi this, sci-fi that, but they put out a lot of crap, so I'm used to a bad movie.

On to the actual movie.

The acting is OK at best; the plot is painfully predictable (Flynn and Gabrielle fall in love. WOW! Never saw that one coming, talk about unexpected!), and the Script is Laughable, at best. The special effects are sub-par, but not the worst I've seen.

Probably the Biggest insult To the audience, is that this movie is just a straight rip-off of Indiana Jones(Indiana Jones being, of course, good). It's the exact same style: Finding one clue at a time in some ancient dialect, decoding it with his lady friend, getting in near-death situations, blah, blah, blah-the list goes on and on. The even tried (and failed disturbingly) at creating a catchy theme song akin to that of Indie's.

In addition, There are many Historical inaccuracies in this movie: Flynn Says something about the Sumerians Helping out the Greeks or the Romans (you remember, when the two mental patients people call "actors" twist the globe around and open it up). This is however impossible, as the Sumerians Existed 7000 Years before any Greeks or Romans. You'd think these writers could splurge and spend $10 on cliffs notes for world history. These slip-ups, however, are no big deal, as the average person won't know or care about these.

I Give this movie more like 2.5 stars because they did surprisingly well at copying and executing an Indiana Jones Rip-off with such a low budget. Also, since these guys have such a low budget, I'll cut them some slack I understand that this wasn't meant to be taken too seriously, but even with this in mind, it still reminds me of something I would see come out the backside of a dog.

I Really hate to have to say all this, because it is obvious that the actors, writers, producers, director, etc spent a lot of time, effort, and money into making this, but it is just not very good. And of course with the low budgets these movies receive, it's tough, but this movie could have been better by, for example spending less of their budget on special effects and actually paying an editor to make the script and plot better. Sometimes, less is more.

So here's my 2 cents: If you are an average movie watcher, under no circumstances spend ANY money to rent this. Do not even plan to watch this: If it happens to be on T.V. and you have absolutely nothing else to do, Turn your brain off and prepare yourself for a few hours of laughing. If you are one of those people like me who are used to crappy sci-fi movies, even this will be hard to trudge through. If you are someone who likes a logical, flowing, sensible yet unexpected plot with good acting, do yourself a favor and rent Sesame Street or the Teletubbies.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This movie is fun. It is not an Oscar winning classic.
Joshua Morris25 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
If I were to base this review simply on commercial success, I would have to give a 3 or a 4, however Noah Wyle makes this movie a hidden gem.

Don't take it too seriously, because they don't have the budget for high quality special effects, but the acting is good (except for a few of the baddies) and it is definitely worth a watch.

Gabrielle Anwar provides a great opposite to Noah in this episode and there are a couple of twists that were unexpected.

I've been pretty happy with the whole librarian series, but again....don't take this stuff too seriously! Its meant to be fun.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Much, much better than the first one.
david-sarkies12 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This was actually much better than the first movie, but I suspect that it had something to do with a director who has a awful lot of experience. In fact this is actually one of the better pieces that Frakes has directed since most of his stuff tends to be very touchy feely mushy mushy Star Trek features (he played my least favourite character on Next Generation, being Commander Ryker – which isn't saying much because I am so not into Star Trek).

Anyway, this is set a year after the first film, and suddenly the characters actually have a bit more of a life in them. As I said, maybe it has something to do with a better director behind the helm. In this one Flynn goes off in search of King Solomon's mines, but it is also a search for finding out what happened to his father. It turns out that his father died when he was young, and all he has left is a medallion and a bunch of drawings. Along the way he meets up with an archaeologist (female of course) who actually has more degrees than he does.

I actually like the female character in this film much better than in the first film. Firstly she had a proper name (as opposed to Nicole No one, which simply made be groan with frustration) and the fact that they were both academics made the characters work much better together. Also look for the tribute to Cassablanca near the end.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
shanfloyd28 December 2006
If you liked the first Librarian movie you'll like it too. This film picks up right where the first film ended. This time the theme is good old King Solomon's mines... sometimes I really wonder how many more adventure movies will be based on this thing. The shooting locations are nice, the action sequences are entertaining. The ending is predictable, but fun.

Noah Wyle again does a very entertaining smart job as Flynn. But I'm not sure about the point behind casting old and partly anorexic Gabrielle Anwar in this physically challenging role. Yes, she was a real beauty in her times, but here she looks quite gross. Anyway, no need to dwell much into such trivial matters... the movie is sure to deliver what it's supposed to in the end.
10 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
sort of adventurous...
viewing audience9 December 2006
The Librarian: Return to King Solomon's Mines

i like adventures..but not so is about..hunting for treasure and guys chasing........this movie is got lots of adventures form....the location is amazing if it is real..not all of them but may animation.....which is awesome.........makes screenplay very realistic......story line goes similar to Indiana Jones or may be mummy(returns) ...the librarian, Flynn (nerdy) seems to get always saved by Emily(other librarian or Lara croft rather) clutching the enemies is cool...climax is weird, the fighting is unrealistic......over all the movie is a good pass-time movie...
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Librarian part 2: The book he should not read
unbrokenmetal11 January 2010
Flynn Carsen (Noah Wyle) has learned a lot in the year which has passed since he took the Librarian job, that makes him more of a traditional action hero with a clear idea of what he wants to achieve instead of stumbling accidentally into an adventure. That is already summed up in the opening sequence when he steals an artifact found by a competitor, runs a race horse against motorbike and casually mentions he does this kind of thing all the time. So why not try and find the most dangerous book in the world in King Solomon's Mines? While Carsen is less frightened, the audience is less thrilled. It's not least the monumental music by Joseph LoDuca ("Xena") which recharges the batteries and keeps the sequel running with a lot of energy. But even the fireworks attack by the special effects department cannot hide that everything is somewhat predictable, less funny and less original than its predecessor. I voted 8/5/7 for the Librarian trilogy.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
What happened to Nicole??
Kerrie (squeezer501)9 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
It doesn't even mention Nicloe in this movie! They had something going on in the first one and now suddenly they put in a new lady who Flynn doesn't even end up with in the end anyway! His mom just starts to hook him up with other people at the beginning. If Nicole died, then wouldn't you think that he would mourn about it for a couple of minutes so that people know what's going on. Or even if it just didn't work out he could have said a little line like when his mom is trying to hook him up with his third cousin he could have said something about how that after the break up with Nicole he didn't want to date at the moment. So Who knows what the heck happened to her? It was a really good movie though, but I didn't like the new chick he fell for, she was very whinny and arrogant.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The fun discontinuous...
adam-100930 May 2010
The first part of Librarian was a good project (a lot of humour, pretty good plot, Sonya Walger great as Nicole No one) and I really enjoyed it. Fortunately they've made a sequel, unfortunately they've taken completely different author for the scenario which was a huge mistake.

In the second part the casting wasn't impressive (especially Gabrielle Anwar didn't fit in), the plot was weak, another huge mistake was moving toward the family themes (his father, uncle, etc.) and together with Nicole No one character the chemistry was gone and the humour just wasn't good enough.

It was a good try, but creators missed the first movie example by miles.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
About the same level as the first one
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews11 August 2009
No, I didn't care much for the flick that started this series, either. I wanted to see if this was similar. Yep, it is. This isn't as direct a copy of stuff in the Indiana Jones films(meanwhile, they do go to a well-known and loved classic, as well as Tomb Raider), though the main concept remains the same. One has to wonder why they had Newhart come back, when they weren't going to let him do his famous and popular schtick. This is one of those sequels that ignores one or more aspects about the movie they follow. Frakes does a nice job directing(and appears briefly in a role, as well), and the action here isn't half bad. The plot is relatively predictable, if it does hold a surprise or two. Heck, the effects are even better than in the original, you can't actually immediately tell how they did everything, this time around. The acting is again over the top, so it must be intentional. Humor remains pretty silly and not terribly funny. This has almost no references to well-known legends and such, I guess they ran out when they wrote the first one. Perhaps they weren't expecting to get another chance. I recommend this to fans of the 2004 one and/or the adventure genre, if you don't mind camp and corn value. 6/10
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Why not destroy something to prevent somebody getting it ??
gurubesar14 January 2007
I've always like this kind of "adventure movie", so one Sunday afternoon with nothing to do would be best spent to watch one of this. The action and the plot start with a bang, more like James Bond type of beginning. As usual, the heroes escape without a scratch.

As in the case with other "adventure movies", this one is also searching for something as you can see from the title. Whether it is real or not is something else. Also one thing which I've always wondering when watching this kind of movies. Why is it the hero always looking for something and get it. The instruction is very clear, nobody must find the key.... Well,.. simple solution,... why not just destroy the key if that is the case... This is the logic which I can not really understand when somebody is making this kind of movies.

All is all if you like sight seeing in middle east, this one give you a lot of that, desert, savanna, a lot sands.... and of course Gabrielle Anwar to spice up the movie.

Overall, it is a good enjoyable movie to spend the afternoon if you have nothing else important to do.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
ttapola11 September 2011
Obviously even the idiots in charge of making decisions to finance the first Librarian movie realized where they had gone wrong: a writer, who had delusions of grandeur and a director who couldn't direct if Christopher Nolan was directing *him*. So, they hired a new writer who came up with a less convoluted, less FX heavy script, and most importantly, a director, who has some solid directing credits: Jonathan Frakes (Star Trek: First Contact, several TV episodes).

Then they cast the actors. No more *loads* actors whom obviously had ended up deeming the first movie's script and their paycheck an insult to them. No, limit the number: Bob Newhart, Jane Curtin and Olympia Dukakis all return, but their screen time is kept to bare minimum. The main roles here go to the ever-reliable Eric Avari (a regular guest star of tens of TV shows), Robert Foxworth (he used to star in Falcon Crest in the 1980s), and Gabrielle Anwar, at this point *still* best known for her role in Scent of a Woman - 14 years earlier. Of course, she'd come to escape the prospect of starring in Librarian 3 by getting roles in The Tudors and the magnificent Burn Notice. Bottom line: less actors, and more importantly, less demanding (in terms of money).

Now, they had money left. The sets in this second movie no longer look laughable, they are actually passable. The FX no longer looks incredibly painful, it's "just" lame. Unfortunately, all these improvements come with a price: the script is dull, dull, dull - because it can't *afford* to be exciting. Of course, had they chosen a better writer, they could have filmed this practically in one room and still made it exciting (Cough! Reservoir Dogs. Cough!) Also, by the time the climax was being filmed, the production seems to have run out of money again - cue horrible CGI.

No, while a staggering improvement over the first film, this still rises no higher than a 4/10 complete waste of your time. Even Frakes can't work miracles from such a dull script. Apparently a third one exists, so if they show it, I'll check it just for completeness' sake.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews